A few months ago I noted the importance of having good people selected for the top jobs at NASA under the Obama administration. I believed then, as now, that NASA and the current way of doing business is a fact of life for those in space business and the best we can hope for is folks in the power seats who are positive towards wholly private space ventures.
There has been much too-ing and fro-ing in Washington during the ensuing months over the role of private sector and the old socialist space model. Surprisingly (to some), the most anti-free market action came from a Republican, Senator Shelby from Alabama. He succeeded in reprogramming funds for the COTS-D program, aimed at enabling the purchase of Astronaut tickets to space in a commercial way, back to funding of the old NASA and Aerospace Design Bureaus model borrowed from the Soviets during the Moon Race. Republicans are no different from Democrats when it comes to the basics. They like the Space Kommisars when they represent jobs and campaign contributions in their district or State.
But change is overdue. There is simply no choice for NASA and everyone knows it. Most importantly, the people now in charge understand it and with the supporting Augustine Commission findings (one of whose members, by the way, is a long standing occasional Samizdata reader) that change is about to be implemented.
As I indicated in the title, the end results of all this appear to be even better than I had dared hope.
Next year in L5 anyone?
It just popped up on the Wall Street Journal’s home page a few minutes ago that the manned space program may be outsourced to private comapanies.
Only one? Jeff is a given, of course.
::waves at Aleta and Dan and Doug, all of whom I may have been seen commenting here (or similar places anyway)::
Ah, but only one reader is a Commissioner to my knowledge. Not to say that none of the others persons in that august body are not, just that I do not know it.
Senator Shelby used to be a Democrat – he beat Senator Denton back in 1986, I seem to remember that J. Denton killed himself after the defeat – but how Denton reacted to things is not Shelby’s fault.
Overall Shelby is a good Senator – not perfect (who is in any legislature?) but decent enough, hostile to TARP and other such.
Whereas Barack Obama (the head of the “Obama Administration” in case it has slipped your mind) is a life long Marxist and all round scumbag.
So Dale, if your friends are working for Obama and are foes of Senator Shelby – perhaps you should get other friends.
> So Dale, if your friends are working for Obama and are
> foes of Senator Shelby – perhaps you should get other
> friends.
You seem to be saying that Dale and other libertarian space activists only should try to collaborate with the U.S. government to create a more business friendly environment and better gov’t space program whenever a Republican administration is running the country. Also, no matter how self-serving and harmful Shelby’s space policies are to private space initiatives, Dale should not oppose him since Shelby is a Republican!
> Whereas Barack Obama (the head of the “Obama
> Administration” in case it has slipped your mind) is a
> life long Marxist and all round scumbag.
Perhaps Dale can confirm whether Lori Garver et al (certainly registered Democrats) are life long Marxists and all round scumbags too… I seem to recall that Dale has known Lori for a very long time dating back to their role in the National Space Society.
—
Apparently some folks here think friendship, collaboration and mutual respect is impossible unless the other guy is a libertarian/conservative.
MARCU$
MARCU$ – the evidence against Barack Obama is overwhelming.
There was some excuse for people last year to have no idea of this man’s Marxist life – not just his education (“he can not be blamed for his parents and family friends”) but his lifelong associations and activities, going right up to his appointments of such people as Van Jones and Mark Lloyd today.
Doubtless you know who I am talking about – just as you have read works concerning the life of Barack Obama?
Of course you have not – because YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW.
You are just like the people my father dealt with back in the 1930’s – they “did not know” about Stalin because they did not want to know. So when he left the Young Communist League virtually no one resigned with him.
“You admit your father was a Marxist and you attack us”.
My father turned against Marxism.
When has Barack Obama ever turned against it?
What year did he stop being a a Marxist?
Why does he continue to appoint Marxists in high positions?
Just stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes – and pretend you can not hear or see the questions I (and better men than me) have been asking for over a year.
Afterall – he may give you a nice subsidy for a trip to planet Zog if you are nice to him.
Sympathy should not be given to people who reject warning after warning.
I have great sympathy for some of the people who may well be victims of this regime.
But I have no sympathy at all for people like you – whatever Comrade Barack may do to you.
Paul, perhaps you (or some other enlightened soul here @ Samizdata) can explain to me why the 44th President of the United States is a … Marxist. Calling him a “left wing Democrat” or even “Social Democrat” seems quite fair, but is he really a Communist too?! What facts and evidence have led you to this conclusion??
MARCU$
I have written about this many times over more than a year – as have others.
However, I will do so yet again.
I am not just talking about his Marxist education – he had no say over whether or not he had three hours political education per day before he was even old enough to go to school. He did not choose who his parents were and he did not choose who the friends of his family were (such as Frank Marshall Davis who carried his education after his mother was dead).
The Marxist activities as postgrad at Columbia in New York could also be overlooked – many people have a Marxist stage as undergraduates or postgradutes. Although Barack took Marxism more seriously than most such people – going to conferences and so on and spending a great deal of his time in such work.
But the DECADES of work in Chicago can not be overlooked. After all that is why Barack Obama left New York City (rather than get a job, as he was offered, in the various Wall Street firms who were happy to overlook student radicalism).
Barack Obama wanted to work for the cause – and he was invited to Chicago by people who had taken over various Foundations and were useing for them for the cause.
He worked with these people (not just Bill Ayers but many others) over the next couple of decades – both before and after his time in Harvard Law School (for he went back to Chicago to continue the work).
He was chief training and organzer for the ACORN alliance and was involved in every one of the major Saul Alinsky inspired groups in Chicago.
Even his Church was Holy Trinity – people look at the word “black” in the “Black Liberation Theology” that Rev. Wright served. However, the word “black” was just a marketing ploy (not even originally invented by Wright of course) to appeal to black people (the cannon fodder of the movement) – the important words are not “black” but “Liberation Theology”.
Rev. Wright is a trained man – trained in Liberation Theology, and he knows what it is as well as you know what a rocket is. As do the educated few who were close to him – not the cannon fodder, but the elite like Barack Obama (the person who used to train ACORN thugs – but was careful never to go on a mission himself).
“But Barack Obama broke with Rev. Wright”
In the middle of an election campaign he did – and NOT over Marxist Liberation Theology (he never broke with that) – Barack broke with Wright over Wright’s inability to keep his mouth shut during the campaign.
Decades of work with the leading Marxist controlled groups in the country – both secular and “religious” (Karl himself might have been angered by that – but Frank Marshall Davis had been trying to combine “scientific” Marxism with “ethical” concepts like “social justice” even when he was working in Chicago, and Saul Alinsky would play any game that worked).
Actually I am mildly shocked by how blatent Barack Obama is.
I (if a Marxist myself) would never appoint people like Van Jones and Mark Lloyd to high positions – it makes it too easy for foes to point it out.
Nor would I allow the Apollo Alliance to write the Stimulus Bill – indeed I would have nothing to do with it till it was “scrubbed” of people like the other Mr Jones (Bill Ayers’ cofounder of the Weather Underground – the guy who stayed in New York and is careful not to get his face on television).
Last year I kept wainting for Obama campaign to fall apart – then the real fight against Hillary Clinton could begin.
After all it was obvious after a little reseach that Barack Obama was a life long Marxist – so the mainstream left would destroy him.
I was utterly wrong – the campaign did not disintergate, the mainstream left (the media and so on) never moved against Barack Obama.
Instead these “left wing Democrats and social Democrats” acted as if they knew nothing about the man.
They were then told (we told them – even though that would help Hillary Clinton, we told them because we were getting nervious).
And the mainstream media continued to act as if they knew nothing about the background and activites of Barack Obama – after they were told about them.
In spite of her dissertation being on Saul Alinsky the “left wing Democrat – social democrat” was Hillary Clinton (and how we hated her – indeed our hatred of Hillary Clinton blinded us for too long to the real threat).
Barack Obama is not a “left wing Democrat – social democrat” he is a totally different political type.
To try and put it into terms you may understand – and I apologize for my lack of scientific knowledge.
You are confusing a black powder firework with a liquid fuel rocket (no doubt I am making scientific mistakes already – but I will go on).
Yes they both burn and send something high in the air – but they are quite different things.
One was (as you know) invented by the ancient Chinese – and the other was (I believe) only invented in the 1920s – in the United States if my memory does not fail me (although the early American rockets were not developed in the United States).
A “left wing Democrat – social democrat” is a quite different thing from a dedicated and life long Marxist like Barack Obama.
He is part of large scale movement that has grown up since its set backs in the late 1940’s and 1950’s. The “New Left” never rejected Marxism, its leaders (who were normally, but not always, from “Old Left” families) worked to recover from defeats and to repackage Marxism to make it successful in modern times.
They found aid (in different ways) in the writings of Herbert Marcuse and many others of the Frankfurt School (but also in more early writers such as Gramsci).
And they resolved to not make stupid mistakes like walking around with “Communist Party of the United States” membership cards in their pockets – mistakes of that crass order would only be made by a few in future.
The words Marxist or Communist would only be used privately – words like “Critical” would be used in academic and community organizing life instead.
Of course a few loud mouths would go around shouting to the rooftops that they were Marxist and loved Mao (Van Jones springs to mind).
But most people in the movement would be expected to show some self control.
Hardly “deep cover” (most of them can be nailed after a bit of research) but nothing so blatent as to frighten people who met them casually.
No “hello – I am a Commuinist, I am here to kill you” stuff.
And given the state of the “mainstream” media today that is what Barack Obama would have to say for the them to see a problem with him.
In fact saying would not be enough – he would (as The Onion pointed out) actually have to go around killing people for the media to get a vague sense that there might be something wrong.
Just setting the SEIU on people selling “Do not tred on me” flags is not going to raise any media eyebrows – and most people do not even know that the SEIU and ACORN tend to operate from the same officers. Or that AMERICORPS will soon serve the same function.
I was “crazy” last year (as was that “McCarthy reborn” – Sean Hannity) and Glenn Beck is “crazy” this year – although all he does (stunts aside) is to read out the words and deeds of Barack Obama and his associates.
Of course to most people such things as “working for diversity in the media” are as obscure as rocket science is to me.
They have not got a clue that this means “eliminating all dissent”.
And when one explains it them (a few quotes from Mr Lloyd – where he boasts of what he intends to do, are helpful in this regard) they react by saying “it can not mean that” or “the President does not know about these people”.
The people he appointed – and the people he has worked with his whole life.
One error (really two errors) that Barack Obama made in his political life surprises me – they surprise me because they are unforced errors, indeed errors he was clearly warned about.
Frank Marshall Davis was critical of those Marxists who refused to mix ethical concepts into their activties. For example, he stressed the value (if only for propaganda purposes) of personal help for the poor – not just “organizing” them to be used as cannon fodder.
“Lenin” refused (although a wealthy man of noble birth) to donate any money to charity – because he welcomed poverty for political reasons (and was also just a bad, mean, person – he did not donate anything even before he was a Marxist). This got out and was used against V.I.U. (“Lenin”) by his foes.
Frank was critical of such foolishness and insisted that tradtional ethical concepts should not be rejected by Marxists (at least not openly – in their personal conduct). He was also critical of getting too closely involved in political corruption.
For both of these reasons (which are, of course, related) Frank Marshall Davis was considered something of a heretic by Marxists in Chicago in the 1930’s.
As Frank was the mentor of Barack Obama I would have expected all the above to be reflected in Barack. And it is VERBALLY – there is a lot of talk about traditiional moral virtues (just as Frank taught), but it is NOT reflected in personal conduct – which Frank taught it should be.
For example, Barack gave virtually nothing of his large income to help the poor (before he started to run for President) – he regarded them simply as cannon fodder to be “organized” for political purposes. In this Barack was much closer to classical Marxists such as “Lenin” (and to Karl Marx himself – another guy who could not have cared less about the suffering of real individuals, other than himself) than he was to the teachings of Frank.
Also, whereas Frank taught that one should be careful in getting too close to a corrupt political machine, Barack followed the other other Saul Alinsky followers in getting into bed with the new Daley Machine (the old Mayor Daley was not very friendly to the Marxists – but Daley Jr was prepared to make deals with anyone who would support him, including Bill Ayers who he basically gave the schools to).
All the corruption of the Machine was embraced by Barack – indeed he embraced aspects of it that some other Marxists were uneasy about. The basic political corruption embraced is outlined in “The Case Against Barack Obama” last year – which almost ignored his Marxism and gives a journalist eye view of his Machine activities.
Of course I am NOT saying that Barack was the only Marxist in Chicago to become a total scumbag (most of them did) – but this was NOT true of all the Marxists in Chicago.
So Barack’s Marxism and his scumbagness (in I may use such a word) have to be treated as partly different things.
Either of the above errors – the obvious lack of any real concern for the poor (using them simply as political cannon fodder – in a city with, for example, the highest sales taxes in the coutry) and the vast level of political corruption, should have sunk Barack Obama last year.
Or it would have done – if the United States had an independent media.
But as Sean Hannity stated (yes I know he is not a journalist, neither am I, and Sean Hannity did VASTLY more than I did last year – just as Glenn Beck, another nonjournalist, is doing VASTLY more than I am, this year)….
“Journalism is dead” – that is what Sean Hannity said (repeatedly) and he was correct.
The “mainstream media” would not send anyone to investigate Barack Obama (acting as his fan club instead – as they still are) – they just sent their top investigators to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin (and when they could not find any dirt – they simply made up stories to try and discredit her).
The msm would not even print or broadcast stories they were GIVEN (by many people).
And no amount of factual evidence (“chapter and verse”) made any difference.
It would not be printed and it would not be broadcast.
Journalism is dead.